Quit inventing nonexistent precision when doing unit conversions. If the original source quotes 1000 km, which is obviously already an estimate (being a round number) and has only 1 sig fig, “600-ish” miles is all the imperial unit precision you get.
It was aimed at the article writer, not you, although I see now that the actual headline was only in imperial and you added the metric conversion, so I understand why it may have seemed otherwise. You actually converted it back with an appropriate amount of precision, so that’s good.
Since we’re picking nits, I hate that the image at the top is a completely unrelated drone. The caption does not tell you that the image is of a generic short range drone. Then the image at the bottom that could be the test article has no caption at all to tell us what it is.
Quit inventing nonexistent precision when doing unit conversions. If the original source quotes 1000 km, which is obviously already an estimate (being a round number) and has only 1 sig fig, “600-ish” miles is all the imperial unit precision you get.
Excuse me? I don’t do imperial, I am from continental Europe. :)
It was aimed at the article writer, not you, although I see now that the actual headline was only in imperial and you added the metric conversion, so I understand why it may have seemed otherwise. You actually converted it back with an appropriate amount of precision, so that’s good.
Since we’re picking nits, I hate that the image at the top is a completely unrelated drone. The caption does not tell you that the image is of a generic short range drone. Then the image at the bottom that could be the test article has no caption at all to tell us what it is.